Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

2017 Season Hype/Countdown Thread

Darth Snow said:
Interesting stuff here. 538 did an analysis of what losing starters means to a team's win total. Findings relevant to us:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/michigans-lineup-was-gutted-how-much-will-it-matter/
On offense:

I'm still figuring it all out, but looks like we can expect to be down 1-2 wins against an average schedule compared to your average team.
Click to expand...
What the data can't account for is who you lost and what your depth looked like.

I mean, if you lose a starting QB and someone else loses a starting OG it is not the same thing. And if you lose a starting QB but your depth is a guy who started for you in fewer than 4 games (therefore a non-starter by the definition these sites use), playing well, that's different than replacing with unproven depth.

I look at CU's roster and I kind of shrug at the numbers when they're telling me that guys like Oliver, Montez, Huckins and McCartney aren't returning starters.
 
Darian3Hagan said:
What if the new QB is better than the one you lost?
Click to expand...
heh. he hasn't proven that yet.
Buffnik said:
What the data can't account for is who you lost and what your depth looked like.

I mean, if you lose a starting QB and someone else loses a starting OG it is not the same thing. And if you lose a starting QB but your depth is a guy who started for you in fewer than 4 games (therefore a non-starter by the definition these sites use), playing well, that's different than replacing with unproven depth.

I look at CU's roster and I kind of shrug at the numbers when they're telling me that guys like Oliver, Montez and McCartney aren't returning starters.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I start getting antsy when you start finding reasons to ignore data. Lots of teams talk about having real developed depth. Very few teams do.
 
Darth Snow said:
heh. he hasn't proven that yet.

Agreed, but I start getting antsy when you start finding reasons to ignore data. Lots of teams talk about having real developed depth. Very few teams do.
Click to expand...
It's kind of like with CSU last year and how inexperienced the media said they were. MM then pointed out how many upperclassmen they had in their 2-deep and it was among the most in the nation. They went on to have a very nice season and had a very solid team. Similarly, CU is not a young or inexperienced team. The defense has to get used to playing together and gel, but they're not young. I think we've got 1 guy (Udoffia) who isn't more than 2 years removed from high school starting. On offense, the only guy without significant starts will be at TE (if it's not Frazier) and everyone's a veteran. I expect some growing pains since every year it's a new team and all, but I see an experienced and very veteran team I'm more confident in than I was at this time last year about the 2017 squad.
 
Last edited:
Buffnik said:
It's kind of like with CSU last year and how inexperienced the media said they were. MM then pointed out how many upperclassmen they had in their 2-deep and it was among the most in the nation. They went on to have a very nice season and had a very solid team. Similarly, CU is not a young or inexperienced team. The defense has to get used to playing together and gel, but they're not young. I think we've got 1 guy (Udoffia) who isn't more than 2 years removed from high school starting. On offense, the only guy without significant starts will be at TE (if it's not Frazier) and everyone's a veteran. I expect some growing pains since every year it's a new team and all, but I see a an experienced and very veteran team I'm more confident in than I was at this time last year about the 2017 squad.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We have been waiting a long time for this situation to be here where we aren't starting a new crop of freshman every year. Feels like we are finally there, which hopefully means the program is healthy and 'back' as far as being a regular, competent P5 team.
 
Buffnik said:
It's kind of like with CSU last year and how inexperienced the media said they were. MM then pointed out how many upperclassmen they had in their 2-deep and it was among the most in the nation. They went on to have a very nice season and had a very solid team. Similarly, CU is not a young or inexperienced team. The defense has to get used to playing together and gel, but they're not young. I think we've got 1 guy (Udoffia) who isn't more than 2 years removed from high school starting. On offense, the only guy without significant starts will be at TE (if it's not Frazier) and everyone's a veteran. I expect some growing pains since every year it's a new team and all, but I see an experienced and very veteran team I'm more confident in than I was at this time last year about the 2017 squad.
Click to expand...
I more or less agree with you, but I've learned to check myself when I start finding reasons that things will be improved over the previous year. So that's why I think we only win 8 games this year. :ROFLMAO:
 
Darth Snow said:
I more or less agree with you, but I've learned to check myself when I start finding reasons that things will be improved over the previous year. So that's why I think we only win 8 games this year. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I'm at 8 wins myself. Would be disappointed with 7, ecstatic with 10.
 
rodrigo said:
Sort of amusing what people are finding to fret about. Broad statistical analysis of x situation... A quarterback speaking with confidence about what he expects of the offense... Jeez. Tomorrow night can't get here soon enough.
Click to expand...

Exactly. No one can talk themselves out of being confident about our team being good quite like Buffs fans. A whole lot of, "Well our DL isn't as deep as I'd like" and "It looks like CSU's office is just as good as CU's" going on. I guess ten years of weekly beat downs will do that to a fan base.
 
SerenityBuff said:
Exactly. No one can talk themselves out of being confident about our team being good quite like Buffs fans. A whole lot of, "Well our DL isn't as deep as I'd like" and "It looks like CSU's office is just as good as CU's" going on. I guess ten years of weekly beat downs will do that to a fan base.
Click to expand...

Most fans have the Buffs winning big tomorrow and at least eight games overall. Confidence is hardly the issue.
 
I think that if you're doing preseason odds, the conventional wisdom would be:

Very likely wins: Texas State, UNCo, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State and Cal.
Very likely losses: Washington and USC
Somewhere in between: CSU, UCLA, Washington State, Utah

So 7 to 9 wins is in that conventional wisdom bell curve, 6 or 10 would be on the outlier of what's likely, and anything better or worse than that would be surprisingly good or bad.
 
I'll share a funny story from last years RMS. I brought a buddy of mine who is a big Ohio State fan. He moved here years ago and has been slowly picking up the CU mantle as a team to follow here. Some of you guys might remember him from the tailgate last year. Anyway, we are up 24-0 or some such figure and I'm still sitting there worried that we will blow it. Jason looks at me and says "dude, this game is over. Long past over."
It took an Ohio State fan to point out the obvious. We had been conditioned to expect the worst. To a degree, that conditioning remains.

I could be wrong. It's happened once or twice before. But I honestly think the days of CSU having a ghost of a chance in this game are far behind us. We are better at every position. We are bigger, faster, stronger, and better prepared. I fully expect a 3-4 score margin of victory.
 
Out of all of the various reasons to be concerned or hyped posted herein, the changes to the coaching staff concern me the most - particularly in the area of defensive play calling. I don't see a huge fall-off from a talent perspective on the defensive side of the ball. Yes, we've lost some studs, but I think the men behind them will get up to speed very quickly. As much as we like to hate him now, Levitt seemed to have the 'it' factor last year. Eliot, in my view, is a big unknown in this area. As I recall, Mark Stoops pulled the play calling from him in Kentucky. That seems like a big red flag. I'm pulling for Eliot, no doubt, but that will be one of the parts of the game I'll watch closely. Regardless, I still think we win by more than 2 TD's.
 
Last edited:
Duff Man said:
Sorry that 8-4 is such a horrible outcome to predict and that it bothers you so much.
Click to expand...

12 months ago if you told me we could go 8 - 4 and I would have been over the ****ing moon.

BTW - I predicted 6 wins this season (with a win tomorrow) - so I'm happy to take the mantle of the pessimist around here.

I think Duff's overarching point isn't that we will be a bad team, but that the defense is going to take some time to gel, and we have a weakness up the middle. With CSU having a great offense it means that things could get dicey tomorrow, even if we win. There are going to be some growing pains this season, and we need to have some patience. The year to year changes are part of what make college football so much fun.
 
Make no mistake, I don't think this is your typical CSU team. They have some offensive talent and last week was huge for them. Still, as Sacky and others have said, CU is as good and more often better at every single position. Ok, maybe not PK and punter. Still.

Of all the wringing of hands, the questions of how quickly the Buffs can shake off the rust and coaching/scheming/adjustments on the D side seem most relevant. Pulling up statistics about teams starting new quarterbacks? If that's what keeps you up at night...
 
Remember when WE were Oregon State and were curb stomped by G5 teams on the road. And then those teams didn't turn out to be very good (Toledo, Fresno State...just off the top of my head).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top